Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34440472›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Alteration of Genomic Imprinting after Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Long-Term Health.

Eguzkine Ochoa

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eguzkine OchoaDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1506-9065
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are the treatment of choice for some infertile couples and even though these procedures are generally considered safe, children conceived by ART have shown higher reported risks of some perinatal and postnatal complications such as low birth weight, preterm birth, and childhood cancer. In addition, the frequency of some congenital imprinting disorders, like Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome and Silver-Russell Syndrome, is higher than expected in the general population after ART. Experimental evidence from animal studies suggests that ART can induce stress in the embryo and influence gene expression and DNA methylation. Human epigenome studies have generally revealed an enrichment of alterations in imprinted regions in children conceived by ART, but no global methylation alterations. ART procedures occur simultaneously with the establishment and maintenance of imprinting during embryonic development, so this may underlie the apparent sensitivity of imprinted regions to ART. The impact in adulthood of imprinting alterations that occurred during early embryonic development is still unclear, but some experimental evidence in mice showed higher risk to obesity and cardiovascular disease after the restriction of some imprinted genes in early embryonic development. This supports the hypothesis that imprinting alterations in early development might induce epigenetic programming of metabolism and affect long-term health. Given the growing use of ART, it is important to determine the impact of ART in genomic imprinting and long-term health.

Indexed as

assisted reproductive technologyDNA methylationepigenetic reprogramminggenomic imprintinglong-term health

Identifiers

PMID34440472
PMCPMC8398258
OpenAlexW3184776168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.